INEQUITY OR IS IT PRIORITY ?

Editor — Thu, 19 May 2011 04:14:35 +0000

The crux of discontent for recreational fishers of New Zealand is “Where do we sit as sustenance and recreational fishers?” Since the establishment of the “property rights” and monetary value of these property rights of commercial fishermen, the status of fishers who fish for fun and a feed, has eroded into a grey and unknown position. The Ministry of Fisheries has protected commercial on the grounds of these “ property rights” above all others, except perhaps customary Maori who rightly have traditional customary rights to our fisheries. The Ministry must also acknowledge Maori’s position and Treaty rights, but unfortunately New Zealanders including recreational Maori who fish for food and fun are left frustrated by a decreasing amount of fish, that are smaller and less abundant. The catch cry of recreational fishers is “More Fish in the Water,” but alas, abundance is shrinking in many fisheries.
Recreational representatives who have battled for years for our fair share of the fishery have taken the Ministry of Fisheries to court over the over- allocation of kahawai, the people’s fish, to bulk harvesting methods by commercial purse seining vessels. The decline of this important fish that is slowly rebuilding, yet now the ministry are asking for submissions on a few Ministry “chosen” options of just how much of the kahawai stocks will be bulk harvested once again.
The Ministry Inshore team have already made a “technical” adjustment to slash the people’s allocation, almost in half. This is the thin edge of the wedge, where proportionately, our people will end up with a smaller slice of the biomass pie. Sadly, an option that is missing in the choice of options the people have made, is the option to leave this “people’s fish” alone, and that it becomes a recreational only species and fishery. Of great concern to informed recreational representatives, is that the president of the government’s National Party is a major shareholder of Sandford Ltd, who will be doing much of the bulk harvesting of our kahawai.
So, the priority rights that commercial have with their ownership of their property rights (given to them for free on their catch history) will win the day, once again when the Ministry advises the outcome of the submissions on kahawai.
The facts are that recreational fishers have the numbers of around one million fishers, and the revenue derived from recreational fishing, far exceeds the profits commercial will generate from converting kahawai into cat food or Australian crayfish bait. The statement that many recreational representatives make, is that the ministry have ALREADY decided on the outcome of the options, well before actual consultation with the public, could well be true. It is a fact that the ministry must consult with the people.
It seems a fact to me, that commercial have a priority over the people and probably over customary Maori, when delivering the Total Allowable Catch to commercial for kahawai.
The simple fact that our allocation to kahawai has been slashed around half on a “technicality” is more proof we are losing ground to commercial.
Another issue that is close to my heart where I live is the “inequity” of size of rock lobsters that commercial can take undersized crayfish in the Gisborne CRA3 fishery, during June July and August. A quota holder in the commercial sector who is strongly against this so called “concession” describes it as “making an illegal activity, legal.”
This “concession” began in 1993 and by now, thousands of tonnes of undersized lobsters have been harvested by commercial out of the CRA3 fishery.
This particular issue has raged on particularly since 2000, after the large marine reserve was established near Gisborne in 1999 and the abundance of rock lobsters took a dive, owing to commercial’s shifted effort closer to town. DoC failed to allow for less rock lobsters to be available owing to the closure of fishing grounds caused by the marine reserve. The Ministry were too slow to react, and allowed commercial to fish as hard for seven consecutive years with a massive Total Allowable Commercial Catch of 327 tonnes, for far too long. The “concession” was only an interim measure when it was set up in 1993 to be reviewed three years later. Coupled with this “deal” was that legislated “closed seasons” would be set up for all sectors to protect lobsters while soft shelled or in berry. The fishery increased dramatically as the main tool of the deal was that the TACC would be cut in half on the proviso that commercial be allowed to take smaller male rock lobsters for three months in winter until abundance was restored. The first size analysis of the commercial catch after the concession was agreed to, was close to 100% of the total commercial catch were undersized concession fish. As the fishery took a severe fall, after the marine reserve was established, the commercial asked recreational to allow them to change the legislation and abolish the legislated closed seasons, (to let them fish year round and fish longer) the recreational representatives asked that the concession be abolished, now that the fishery had produced greater abundance. However this inequity continues till this day. Many recreational representatives walked away in disgust as the commercial people dug their toes in. This is extreme INEQUITY that the commercial sector holds over the people of the East Coast and many visitors to Gisborne over summer, still exists today.
Myself, as the recreational representative battling for equity or a level playing field in this issue, have on behalf of our mandate offered a solution where some areas where the people live and fish be made “recreational Only Areas.” We even offered that the concession continue, if we had the spatial separation. Seems fair enough to us. We are not greedy.
The National government promised in their pre-election Policy document in their “Aquaculture and Fisheries Policy” that “significant areas would be established as Recreational Only Reserves.” Minister Phil Heatley has baulked on this policy promise so far, yet the prime Minister John Key, it is rumoured has asked his ministers to deliver on the National Party pre-election promises. All we ask for is to address the Spatial Conflict issue and the “inequity of Size” issue for the East Coast CRA3 fishery. Therefore, areas closed to commercial and that commercial target the same size as us. It is all about the INEQUITY of access and PRIORITY status that commercial have over the fishers who fish for fun and a feed. I also do not feel confident any more, in the status that “Customary Maori” have first priority in the fishery, then “Recreational Fishers,” followed by “allowing for” “mortality and the illegal take” and ending with what is left over of the biomass which should become the “ Total Allowable Commercial Catch.” Something is drastically wrong in the recognised sequential status of each sector for all fishers in New Zealand.
Even Customary Maori seem to be watered down in their pride of place. Maori have a genuine “fix-it” tool which can exclude commercial fishers from a traditional fishing ground. This is called Mataitai. It is specifically to control localised depletion. It also controls extractions by excluding commercial bulk harvesting methods. It can allow commercial to fish at times, but not simply pick and chose which commercial who can fish within a Mataitai. Mataitai is there for “Local Area Management.” It does not exclude Pakeha. It is there for all users, to enable them to fish for a fair daily bag for both sustenance and enjoyment of the fishing experience. It will be managed as per abundance and a Rahui (a period of closed fishing for all) could be installed if fishing has been destroyed by over fishing, like the inshore grounds around Gisborne. No where else in New Zealand is there such commercial fishing pressure on the people’s very doorstep. However, the Ministry of Fisheries is stagnating processing Mataitai applications. I wonder why?
Another example, and a valid reason for a Mataitai near Gisborne town, would be because of serious localised depletion caused by a newly found scientific fact of “slow growth.” NIWA scientists Paul Breen and Paul Starr as well as the Mfish scientist John Sullivan established and recognised that the Gisborne rock lobster fishery has experienced a unique phenomenon, of “slow growth” in lobsters. This is not found anywhere else in New Zealand. This is probably caused by incessant over handling and stress. Debbie Freeman did a huge thesis peer reviewed and tagged many thousands of lobsters in and around the marine reserve. Lobsters grew at normal rates inside of the marine reserve, (where protected) but extraordinarily slow, outside of the marine reserve. Debbie Freeman re-measured these tagged lobsters and established that some lobsters even actually shrunk at times, because of broken limbs or feelers or stress from over handling. Black Rot handling damage was 27% just outside of the marine reserve, where commercial targeted heavily, but under 1% inside of the marine reserve, where no fishing was allowed. The Ministry would not accept this fact I pointed out, given to me by DoC, when I first brought it up at the CRA3 working group, but behind the scenes it was finally established as fact. Lobsters in this area only grow 1mm to 1.5mm per moult, thus making the lobsters far less available to recreational fishers who have to wait and take larger size. Commercial in fact now have several seasons of harvesting opportunity on these slow growing lobsters, before any “missed” ones become available to recreational fishers who have to stick to the National size of 54mm males for normal recreational fishers. This is another huge example of INEQUITY and PRIORITY that commercial enjoy over the people of New Zealand.
Some may say Customary Maori can still take small undersized lobsters under the customary regulations. Well that is true, but let me say there are Kaitiaki who issue “all sorts” of customary permits. Some state a size while others do not. The true, customary Maori around Gisborne town actually want the commercial concession to be abolished because all that is left for them are the very small lobsters that are even too small for commercial to keep, that are below the “illegal made legal” concession, commercial enjoy. Commercial do gather rock lobsters as by-catch for customary Maori but must put them in separate labelled bins. Therefore Customary lobsters harvested for Maori customary are mainly smaller than commercial can use or are damaged ones. For Hui and Tangi, it is considered unacceptable and insulting to be offered “weta-sized” crayfish. After all, if recreational fishers took rock lobsters of the same size as commercial do, for themselves or for customary Maori, we get fined. Simple as that. It’s called Inequity and Priority for commercial fishers only. One must ask, “Why should Maori be given the very smallest and damaged lobsters for important Hui and Tangi? This is wrong.
So finally, it is a fact that recreational fishers who fish for fun and a feed, are placed in a lower category than commercial. We are at the bottom of the heap in priority status.
Call it “Inequity” or a “Priority” for commercial fishing. For sure, the above scenarios spells out the status of Recreational Fishers of New Zealand, for kahawai as well as rock lobsters.. Think about it.

Article written by Alain Jorion

Members Musings – Martyn Barlow, TasFish

Editor — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:45:06 +0000

March 2011

Member’s muse

There are varying points of view regarding the amateur fisher’s lot, and how they are or should be represented. One thing is clear in my mind that if the amateurs are to get better decisions from MFish then something needs to change, because the Ministry has changed dramatically.
Amateurs are represented by volunteers who donate considerable time at considerable financial cost. This needs to change if we are to compete with industry and manage fish stocks at abundance levels that are high enough to provide reasonable to access. Say what you like about it being a right for New Zealanders to be able to fish, at some point someone has to fight for that right and pay for the fight.
Most amateurs think it is unbelievable that MFish has allowed the concession fishery in Cray 3 to continue, where commercial fishers are allowed to take smaller crayfish than amateurs and now Minister Heatley and inshore manager Leigh Mitchell (previously of the Cray 3 area) have just created two more concession fisheries.
Unbelievable I know but recreational fishers in the Marlborough Sounds from 1 April will be required to return all Blue Cod outside the slot range of 30-35cm giving exclusive access to fish above 35cm to industry and further more commercial fishers will continue to be allowed to fish for blue cod when the fishery is closed to amateurs from 1 September to 20 December. But wait there is more a third concession fishery has been created for industry with the exemption to the set net prohibition allowing “commercial fishers only” to target butterfish in defined areas.
The number of people who fish for food or fun in NZ is estimated to be in excess of one million and I find it amazing how few people are actually prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel to improve the amateur’s access to abundant fisheries in this country, or is it that surprising?
Having been involved in advocacy for almost 10 years in the top of the South Island with TASFISH I am not really surprised few people get involved and the few that are have being doing it for longer that they care to remember, and at some cost. People are busy and either haven’t got the time, money (believe me it costs) or even energy to contribute to the amateurs cause and any free time they do have they would rather go fishing.
In 2010 we saw the organisational design review (ODR) of MFish under the then CEO Wayne McNee who when moved to MAF was not replaced at MFish, and we now know why as MAF and MFish are to be combined as one super Ministry.
The ODR did not achieve any reduction in MFish employees but saw the knowledge and experience ripped out of it’s fisheries management team with centralisation of inshore fisheries management to Wellington. This ensured MFish lost the people who had local area knowledge of fisheries and the associated issues. Furthermore this centralisation is contrary to the local area management that amateur representatives have been asking for and what is needed in shared fisheries.
Which brings me back to amateur representation and it’s effectiveness, because now more than ever under a new super Ministry the amateurs lot is under it’s greatest threat yet.
So fellow amateur fishers until you can park your own personal agendas and entrenched views to one side to allow us to stand united and work together as one voice through a statutory body that can employ full time professionals to represent us we will continue to get the unjust inequitable decisions from an industry funded super Ministry.
We can only blame ourselves if we do not change.

Martyn Barlow
President of TasFish

Members Muse – March 2011

admin — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:23:37 +0000

Members of the NZRFC come from across New Zealand and do all kinds of fishing activities including shellfish collecting, diving (to look and catch), set netting, line fishing, surfcasting, kite fishing, sports fishing and more. Members have issues specific to their kind of fishing and their region yet some of their issues will be ones familiar to all New Zealanders who go fishing for food or fun. This space is for members to voice their opinions about things going on in their recreational fishing world.

NZRFC » Members Muse

INEQUITY OR IS IT PRIORITY ?

Members Musings – Martyn Barlow, TasFish

Members Muse – March 2011